He’s losing.
I wouldn’t count Palin out on Thursday. She’s brilliant at soliciting sympathy: most viewers -Republicans and Democrats- want her to succeed.
Liberals like myself thought that Reagan appeared to be a simplistic duffus, but I haven’t read about anybody actually disliking Palin. [1] Her poise and charm are off the charts.
Palin was an impressive debater at the state level. She knows how to run the clock and she delivers bland generalities convincingly, better than any politician I know of. And some of her attacks were withering.
The McCain campaign has arranged for answers to be limited to 90 seconds. They are attempting to intimidate the moderator, presumably to avoid awkward followup questions. Couric turned out to be Palin’s perfect foil, ever so gently asking for substantiation that Palin could never offer.
Also, Biden is experienced, but also a gaffe machine. It’s exciting watching him speak, and wondering what will tumble out of his mouth next.
And can it be that hard to assemble a sequence of facts that make her appear more knowledgeable than she is? If it happens once, it will be newsworthy, and the winner of the debate will be the one with the superior 10 second sound-bite.
Thurday’s debate should be a must-see nail biter. I just wish it wasn’t appearing during a full-blown financial crisis, as the spectacle gives me an uneasy feeling in my stomach.
[1] But unlike Palin, Reagan actually did love ideas, though he had a tendency to spin off urban legends during his speeches.
People keep saying that, but she comes off very teenage snot to me.
Here’s an interview that Palin did with a sympathetic interviewer, Hugh Hewitt:
http://townhall.com/MediaPlayer/AudioPlayer.aspx?ContentGuid=bf648743-0dc0-48bb-9f58-013d202d0232
or another way to get there:
http://townhall.com/TalkRadio/Show.aspx?RadioShowID=5
and just scroll down to Tuesday, September 30
Full disclosure: I haven’t listened to the interview yet, I’m downloading it to my ipod for commuting tomorrow AM. Also, I’m in the minority that likes Palin a lot, even though I disagree with her on a few basic issues.
BTW, for those of you who would be interested in hearing an articulate, conservative perspective, you might like Hugh Hewitt. Most of his time is spent on politics but he also interviews about other things, mostly history and Shakespeare. If interested, just use the second link and scroll down until something grabs your attention.
Hrm. I’ve heard people spin this as “Palin couldn’t name a single Supreme Court decision.” The truth is she didn’t (and maybe couldn’t) name a decision she disagreed with.
Also, Biden’s commerce clause argument on the VAWA is very :rolleyes: and :dubious: if you’ve done the homework on this.
If someone can name a handful of cases, they can come up with a couple they disagree with. And it doesn’t have to be by name.
Eminent domain, separate but equal, Dred Scott, substantive due process, the Lemon Test, the Guantanamo decisions, etc. She disagrees with some of these rulings (everyone disagrees with at least ONE).
I’d even accept talk about future rulings, something about fearing the “full faith and credit clause” coming up in reference to same-sex marriage, or heck, even something about cases they refused to hear like the Michael Newdow case against teacher led Pledges of Allegiance. Anything that showed she had some basic awareness instead of “Oh, you know, lots of decisions and and and stuff.”
ETA: And don’t say there’s a right to privacy in the US Constitution and then say the states should be able to outlaw abortion. That just shows you AREN’T PAYING ATTENTION.
Instead of just handing her a do-over like that, for which you can bet she will have been prepped this time, I think it would be more salient to ask her how she reconciles her implied support of Griswold with her opposition to Roe.
That will be perceived as a “gotchya journalism” question, of course, but I think Ifill could help her out by “reminding the audience” that Griswold established the right to privacy, which is the underpinning of Roe. That would neutralize the appearance of a pop quiz question (and hell, it’s not like most of the audience would know what Griswold is anyway, or really has any grasp of the actual Constitutional issues or judicial groundwork for Roe.), and just force her to explain an arguable self-contradiction in philosophy, as well as make an effort to get her to attempt expostulate substantively on Constitutional law beyond the most superficial level of “I think it should go back to the states, uh huh, you betcha.”
Nah, this actually goes back to Barry Goldwater and his opposition to the “Great Society” and other social engineering projects in favor of strong but limited federal envolvement plus an expanded role on the municipal level, with a more limited role of state governments. Reagan hijacked the Goldwater “classical liberalism” by tacking on a social conservative agenda that AuH[sub]2[/sub]O was adamantly opposed to, and the rest, as they say, is history.
Stranger
So Federalism applies to less centralized government now, as opposed to more in the past. I guess Palin IS better qualified than me to be VP. Sad.
Well, recall that the nation in which is (supposed to be) operating has changed significantly.
At the adoption of the Constitution, the U.S. was a rather loose confederation in which the nominal government had to beg each state, separately, for support. The idea that we could srvive better with a bit stronger central government was a key reason that the Constitution was written.
Today, the Federal government is a mammoth institution with enormous powers never dreamed by the authors of the Constitution. If one holds exactly the same views of how the government should operate, the fact that that ideal is contrasted against such widely different actual governments makes it appear that the word has shifted meaning when we are simply viewing the same ideal from two separate realities.
Well, that proves that she can coherently regurgitate talking points in front of a sympathetic interviewer. No substance, of course, but it does suggest she is free of neurological defects.
What a farce, really… “Do you read any the liberal blogs that are mocking you?” “Gosh no, you betcha, not while Americans are getting shot at in Iraq! Thanks for the softball!” :rolleyes: The callers sounded more articulate than she did.
A Washington Post poll finds some interesting things:
(my bold)
Other news: In Alaska, the judge hearing the Troopergate case may issue a ruling today on whether the Legislature’s investigation can go forward (cite). If he allows the investigation to continue, the timing would be good for Biden tonight.
On the one hand, MAN was Palin bad in that SCt clip. I really hope Biden can be like that tonight - at ease, informal, comfortable, and knowledgeable. (For those who disagree with his reliance upon the Commerce clause, well, you might want to look back at a long string of federal legislation upheld by the Supremes due to some-might-say dubious impact on interstate commerce. Moreover, even tho you disagree, at least he was able to answer the question, identify a case, expalin the basis for the Court’s ruling and his disagreement, while slipping in that he sponsored the legislation and conducted Congressional hearings - something Palin has never done.)
OTOH, however, I really think we might see the ridiculous bar-lowering as occurred with W. If Palin can get away without COMPLETELY blubbering, there are many who will laud that as evidence of clear and rapid growth on her part. And these are the types of folk McCain/Palin are aiming at, not folks who are familiar with constitutional law.
If the timing would be deemed good for Biden, you can bet McCain’s camp would cry foul, and scream it was a partisan decision, and throw another tantrum to stop it.
That’s an excellent point. I haven’t been following the trooper thing at all, but I’d probably think it was a little suspicious myself.
After so many tantrums, I don’t think anyone is listening. Wolf-criers always get ignored eventually.
Heh.
We can only hope.
And it’s pretty ironic, because this trend of each state for itself was one of the things that killed the CSA. Resources that one state had rotted because they wouldn’t share it with another for fear that they’d need it, and so state after state fell. You know, united we stand, devided we fall and all that stuff? So naturally this is what the Republicans want to do - to split us up as much as possible.
ETA: A week or two ago, we split ourselves up into about seven or eight countries here in GD, and that seemed like it might work out OK. But fifty states wouldn’t last a year.
No kidding. If violence against women is a federal issue, why isn’t all violence? Men make up a majority of the workforce.
Personally, I think its kinda funny that he had a personal example to give of getting shot down by the Supreme Court. Isn’t that kinda of indicative of the type of lawmaker he is? Lets elect him! He’s already got a head start on the whole unconstitutional thing!